More money than
ever before has gone towards reentry programs in recent years. Nonetheless, the overwhelming majority of convicted persons come away
from their quest for effective reentry program support disappointed, at best.
This disconnect between increased expenditures for reentry programs and
the prevalent alienation of most convicted persons from these programs results
from the inclination of most nonprofits to actually do as
little as possible to get funded. That said, what should a credible and effective
reentry program look like?
Fundamentally, a
credible and effective reentry program must offer holistic support to as many
convicted persons as possible. The
credibility of a reentry program directly connects to its availability to all
levels and types of offenders. Many
programs won’t service sex offenders, and/or violent offenders. Even after eliminating those most serious
offenders from eligibility for services, many reentry programs effectively
discourage most other convicted persons by preferencing the lowest possible
level of offenders for attention. This
amounts to a deliberate avoidance of cases that pose the greatest challenges,
in terms of successful reentry outcomes.
Such an organizational mindset essentially aims to rig the numbers to
the organization’s benefit at the expense of leaving the neediest convicted
persons tragically underserved—or unserved at all.
Holistic reentry
support must seriously address two primary requirements for successful reentry:
employment and housing. These twin peaks
of successful reentry receive much lip service—but much less direct engagement. We need not, and should not, waste resources
earmarked for “reentry” on support services already available in most
communities for all who need them, e.g., substance abuse and addiction
programs, mental health services, subsidized health care, “job readiness”
programs which do nothing more than create resumes and practice interview
skills, etc. Any reentry program that
eschews direct engagement with employers and housing providers merely serves
its own parochial interest, and disserves the interest of the disadvantaged
population it claims to serve.
So, how would you
answer the question posed above: What should a credible and effective reentry program look like?
